Response: "The reason is that in this way Jesus enables people to recognize him as the Suffering Servant of Is 53, he reveals himself as the figure to whom the prophecy refers. The Church's respect for the words of Jesus, Jesus' fidelity to the words of 'Scripture:' this double fidelity is the concrete reason for the formulation 'for many.' In this chain of respectful fidelity, we too take our place with a literal translation of the words of Scripture." (L'OR Wednesday 9 May 2012 number 19 p. 4).

And so we see that the experiential consciousness of Christ leads the pope to an exegesis that is literal and in keeping with the large truth of the unity of Old and New Testaments in the Person of Christ.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE
BENEDICT XVI
PRO MULTIS

TO H.E. ROBERT ZOLLITSCH

ARCHBISHOP OF FREIBURG
PRESIDENT OF THE EPISCOPAL CONFERENCE OF GERMANY

From the Vatican, 14 April 2012

Your Excellency, Dear
Archbishop,

During your visit on 15 March
2012, you informed me that there is still no unanimity among the bishops of the
German-speaking world with regard to the translation of the words “pro
multis” in the Eucharistic Prayers of the Mass. There seems to be a risk that
in the new edition of Gotteslob that is due to be published
shortly, some parts of the German-speaking world wish to retain the translation
“for all”, even if the German Bishops’ Conference should agree to use “for
many”, as requested by the Holy See. I promised that I would write to you on
this important matter, in order to circumvent a division of this kind at the
very heart of our prayer. This letter that I am addressing through you to the
members of the German Bishops’ Conference will also be sent to the other
bishops of the German-speaking world.

Let me begin with a brief word
about how the problem arose. In the 1960s, when the Roman Missal had to be
translated into German, under the responsibility of the bishops, there was a
consensus among exegetes to the effect that the word “many” in Is 53:11f.
is a Hebrew expression referring to the totality, “all”. It would follow that
the use of the word “many” in the institution narratives of Matthew and Mark is
a Semitism and should be translated “all”. This argument was also applied to
the Latin text that was being translated directly, and it was claimed that “pro
multis” points beyond the Gospel narratives to Is 53 and
should therefore be translated “for all”. This exegetical consensus has
collapsed in the meantime: it no longer exists. In the official German
translation of the Scriptures, the account of the Last Supper includes the
words: “This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for
many” (Mk 14:24; cf. Mt 26:28). This highlights something
very important: the rendering of “pro multis”as “for all”
was not merely a translation but an interpretation, a well-founded
interpretation then as now, but an interpretation nevertheless, something more
than a translation.

In a certain sense, this
combination of translation and interpretation was one of the principles that
governed the translation of liturgical books into modern languages immediately
after the Council. It was realized how remote the Bible and liturgical texts
were from the linguistic and conceptual world of people today, so that even in
translation they were bound to remain largely unintelligible to worshippers. It
was a new development that the sacred texts were now being made accessible to
worshippers in translation, and yet they would remain remote from their world,
indeed that remoteness was made manifest for the first time. So it seemed not
only justifiable but even necessary to build interpretation into the
translation and in this way to speak more directly to the listeners, whose
hearts and minds these words were intended to reach.

Up to a point, the principle of
translating the content rather than the literal meaning of key texts is still
justified. Since I constantly have to say liturgical prayers in a variety of
languages, though, it strikes me that the different translations sometimes have
little in common and that often the common text underlying them can scarcely be
detected. Some banal elements have also crept in, which are real
impoverishments. So over the years it has become increasingly clear to me
personally that as an approach to translation, the principle of structural as
opposed to literal equivalence has its limits. In accordance with insights of
this kind, the instruction for translators Liturgiam
Authenticam,issued on 28 March 2001 by the Congregation for
Divine Worship, shifted the focus back onto the principle of literal
equivalence, without of course requiring a one-sided verbalism. The important
insight underpinning this instruction is the above-mentioned distinction
between translation and interpretation. It is necessary both for Scripture and
for liturgical texts. On the one hand, the sacred text must appear as itself as
far as possible, even if it seems alien and raises questions; on the other hand
the Church has the task of explaining it, so that within the limits of our
understanding, the message that the Lord intends for us actually reaches us.
Not even the most sensitive translation can take away the need for explanation:
it is part of the structure of revelation that the word of God is read within
the exegetical community of the Church – faithfulness and drawing out the
contemporary relevance go together. The word must be presented as it is, with
its own shape, however strange it may appear to us; the interpretation must be
measured by the criterion of faithfulness to the word itself, while at the same
time rendering it accessible to today’s listeners.

In this context, the Holy See
has decided that in the new translation of the Missal, the words “pro multis”
should be translated as they stand, and not presented in the form of an
interpretation. In the place of the interpretative explanation “for all”, the
simple rendering “for many” must appear. Let me take the opportunity to point
out that neither Matthew nor Mark uses the definite article, so it is not “for
the many”, but “for many”. If this decision makes a great deal of sense, as I
hope it does, in terms of the fundamental relationship between translation and
exegesis, I am also aware that it poses an enormous challenge to those with the
task of explaining the word of God in the Church, since to the ordinary
church-goer it will almost inevitably seem like a rupture at the heart of the
sacred. They will ask: did Christ not die for all? Has the Church changed her
teaching? Can she do so? May she do so? Are there reactionary forces at work
here to destroy the heritage of the Council? We all know from experience of the
last fifty years how deeply the alteration of liturgical forms and texts
touches people’s souls. How greatly perturbed people will be, then, by a change
in the text at such a key moment. This being so, when the decision was made to
opt for the translation “many”, in view of the difference between translation
and explanation, it was established at the same time that a thorough catechesis
would be needed to prepare the way for this translation in the various language
regions: the bishops would have to help the priests, and through them the lay
faithful, to understand exactly what this is about. Prior catechesis is the
essential condition for adoption of the new translation. As far as I am aware,
no such catechesis has yet taken place in the German-speaking world. The
purpose of my letter is urgently to ask all of you, my dear Brother Bishops, to
develop a catechesis of this kind, to discuss it with the priests and to make
it available to the lay faithful.

The first element in such
catechesis would have to be a brief explanation as to why the word “many” was
rendered as “all” in the translation of the Missal prepared after the Council:
in order to express unequivocally, in the sense willed by Jesus, the
universality of the salvation that he brought. The question immediately arises:
if Jesus died for all, then why did he say “for many” at the Last Supper? And
why do we retain these words of Jesus for the institution? Here it must be
added straight away that according to Matthew and Mark, Jesus said “for many”,
while according to Luke and Paul he said “for you”, which seems to narrow the
focus even further. Yet it is precisely this that points towards the solution.
The disciples know that Jesus’ mission extends beyond them and their circle,
they know that he came to gather together the scattered children of God from
all over the world (Jn 11:52). Yet this “for you” makes Jesus’ mission
quite concrete for those present. They are not simply anonymous elements within
some vast whole: each one of them knows that the Lord died precisely for me,
for us. “For you” covers the past and the future, it means me, personally; we,
who are assembled here, are known and loved by Jesus for ourselves. So this
“for you” is not a narrowing down, but a making concrete, and it applies to
every eucharistic community, concretely uniting it to the love of Jesus. In the
words of consecration, the Roman Canon combined the two biblical formulae, and
so it says “for you and for many”. This formula was then adopted for all the
Eucharistic Prayers at the time of the liturgical reform.

Once again, though, we ask: why
“for many”? Did the Lord not die for all? The fact that Jesus Christ, the
incarnate Son of God, is the man for all men, the new Adam, is one of the
fundamental convictions of our faith. Let me recall just three Scriptural texts
on the subject: God “did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all”, as
Paul says in the Letter to the Romans (8:32). “One has died
for all,” as he says in the Second Letter to the Corinthians concerning
Jesus’ death (5:14). Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all,” as we read in
the First Letter to Timothy (2:6). So the question arises once
more: if this is so clear, why do we say “for many” in the Eucharistic Prayer?
Well, the Church has taken this formula from the institution narratives of the
New Testament. She says these words out of deference for Jesus’ own words, in
order to remain literally faithful to him. Respect for the words of Jesus
himself is the reason for the formulation of the Eucharistic Prayer. But then
we ask: why did Jesus say this? The reason is that in this way Jesus enables
people to recognize him as the Suffering Servant of Is 53, he
reveals himself as the figure to whom the prophecy refers. The Church’s respect
for the words of Jesus, Jesus’ fidelity to the words of “Scripture”: this
double fidelity is the concrete reason for the formulation “for many”. In this
chain of respectful fidelity, we too take our place with a literal translation
of the words of Scripture.

Just as we saw earlier that the
“for you” of the Luke-Paul tradition does not restrict but rather makes
concrete, so now we recognize that the dialectic “many” – “all” has a meaning
of its own. “All” concerns the ontological plane – the life and ministry of
Jesus embraces the whole of humanity: past, present and future. But
specifically, historically, in the concrete community of those who celebrate
the Eucharist, he comes only to “many”. So here we see a threefold meaning of
the relationship between “many” and “all”. Firstly, for us who are invited to
sit at his table, it means surprise, joy and thankfulness that he has called
me, that I can be with him and come to know him. “Thank the Lord that in his
grace he has called me into his Church.” Secondly, this brings with it a
certain responsibility. How the Lord in his own way reaches the others – “all”
– ultimately remains his mystery. But without doubt it is a responsibility to
be directly called to his table, so that I hear the words “for you” – he suffered
for me. The many bear responsibility for all. The community of the many must be
the lamp on the lamp-stand, a city on the hilltop, yeast for all. This is a
vocation that affects each one of us individually, quite personally. The many,
that is to say, we ourselves, must be conscious of our mission of
responsibility towards the whole. Finally, a third aspect comes into play. In
today’s society we often feel that we are not “many”, but rather few – a small
remnant becoming smaller all the time. But no – we are “many”: “After this I
looked, and behold, a great multitude which no man could number, from every
nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues,”, as we read in the Revelation of
Saint John (7:9). We are many and we stand for all. So the words “many” and
“all” go together and are intertwined with responsibility and promise.

Your Excellency, dear Brother
Bishops, with these thoughts I have tried to set out the basic content of the
catechesis with which priests and laity are to be prepared as soon as possible
for the new translation. I hope that all of this can at the same time nourish a
deeper participation in the Holy Eucharist and thus take its place within the
great task that lies ahead of us in the “Year of Faith”. I hope too that the
catechesis will be presented soon and will thus become part of the renewal of
worship that the Council strove to achieve from its very first session.